Staying the course compounds Iraq war errors BY ANDREW GREELEY

[jbfam4]

Staying the course compounds Iraq war errors

January 6, 2006

BY ANDREW GREELEY

http://www.suntimes.com/output/greeley/cst-edt-greel06.html

Why did the Bush administration pick Iraq as a target for the war it needed and wanted? Why risk death to more than 2,000 Americans and more than 30,000 Iraqis? As part of his current public relations campaign, President Bush admits that much of the intelligence on which the Iraq war was based had been faulty. He assumes responsibility but blames the intelligence services. However, he goes on to say that the removal of Saddam Hussein was the "right" thing to do. Saddam is a bad man. He has killed his own people. He caused instability in that part of the world. He hates America. He was always a threat. We had to get rid of him.


The proper question is why, of all the bad people in the world, was Saddam targeted? The president's charges could be leveled against many of the sociopaths on the loose in Asia, Africa and South America.

Who but far-out liberals would object to an attack on Fidel Castro? Or Hugo Chavez? What about Kim Jong Il of Korea? Surely he is a greater threat to the United States than Saddam. Or the Muslim Arabs in Khartoum who have been practicing genocide against black Christians in southern Sudan and black Muslims in Darfur? Or the Shiite grand ayatollahs in Iran? Or the shifty Syrians who have been stirring up trouble for 30 years. Once we win "victory" in Iraq, who will be our next target? Not all these leaders, it might be said, are threats to the United States. But was Saddam a threat a couple of years ago? The president says he was, but where is the evidence that Iraqi terror was aimed at the United States? There is plenty of terror there now, but didn't our invasion and occupation create it?

With a wide selection of possible targets, why did the administration pick Iraq?
The first reason is that the administration needed a war as an excuse to enhance the wartime powers of the commander-in-chief. The United States had swept away the scruffy Taliban in short order. The "war" on terrorism needed another target. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was sure that Iraq would be a pushover. Shock and awe, some special forces, and a compact expeditionary force would wipe out Saddam and all his troops in short order. Had we not driven them out of Kuwait as one would swat an annoying mosquito? It would doubtless be an easier job than even "taking out" Castro.

[opihimoimoi]

1. The Main Reason is the OIL Reserves .....# 2 in the World...

[Village Idiot]

2. Why do they all seem to parrot Chimpy's 30,000 civilians killed?

Even the 100,000 quoted by the Lancet in 2004 was determined to be too low, did not include Fallujah casualties, or homeless, etc...

[grytpype]

3. Why Iraq? Because they thought it would be easy.

Bush's advisors were telling him Iraq would be a cakewalk, we would be greeted as liberators, the whole thing would be wrapped up in weeks.

Then we would own the country, with all its oil, right in the middle of the ME. The oil would pay for the war and whatever reconstruction would be necessary and more besides.

So it was a no-brainer.

I've read a lot of history, and warmongers ALWAYS say the war will be easy and will pay for itself. Always.

[Stuckinthebush]

4. Hugo Chavez?

"Who but far-out liberals would object to an attack on Fidel Castro? Or Hugo Chavez?"

Ignorant line.

[teryang]

5. Ripe fruit ready to be plucked

That's what the ideological zealots of neo-fascism thought. Did not Machiavelli teach them that the creation of an enemy and war abroad was a necessity for the Prince of questionable legitimacy. Create an enemy and war abroad as a means to quash political opposition at home by labelling all opposition as unpatriotic treason. The domestic front is the primary objective. The perception of low hanging fruit abroad is a relative one.

N.Korea, too costly and too risky with the Chinese hegemon nearby. Syria, maybe but not enough natural resources and markets to seize for the cost. Iran, size and distances, entirely too costly. The error of war and occupation is the cost for an illegitimate regime to stay in power. A withdrawal from Iraq in the face of a violent insurgency represents political failure and military defeat. It would doom this regime.